Rachel Malone writes:

For those of us who believe that words like “shall not be infringed” mean what they say, Constitutional Carry makes perfect sense. For someone who’s never considered the idea, constitutional or “permitless” carry may be a shocking proposition.

I’ve already presented its safety benefits. It’s time to acknowledge the fact that Constitutional Carry restores minority Americans’ lost civil right to keep and bear arms.

At the beginning of this nation’s history, African-Americans weren’t recognized as legal citizens. The “gun rights” protection clauses in both the states’ and the federal Constitution didn’t apply to them. Many states created laws to specifically exclude blacks — both slaves and freed men — from keeping and/or bearing arms.

Clayton E. Cramer of the Constitution Society gives us an example:

Arms restrictions on free blacks increased dramatically after Nat Turner’s Rebellion in 1831 caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. In response to Turners Rebellion, the Virginia Legislature made it illegal for free blacks “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead.”

In addition, the existing law under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was repealed, thus making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks.

But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner’s Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, but did not have powder or a weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner.

After the war between the states, the 14th amendment recognized blacks as citizens, with full legal rights. Many states enacted sweeping gun bans to protect their racist gun control regimes.

At the same time, firearms licensing schemes spread throughout the U.S., including literacy tests, high fees and summary judgements based on an applicant’s’ “character.”

Women and men of color, many facing murderous racists, were denied a permission slip to exercise their gun rights in defense of innocent life (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr.).

The Florida Supreme Court admitted the state’s firearms licensing scheme’s racist roots when it overturned the conviction of a white man arrested for carrying a handgun without a permit.

In Watson v. Stone, Justice Buford stated, “I know something of the history of this legislation. . . . The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.”

If you think that this bias is ancient history, that today’s permitting and licensing regimes are administered without regard to race, think again. If a voter ID card is considered racist, what are we to make of the far more onerous permitting process?

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island’s “may issue” concealed carry licensing schemes depend entirely on the say-so of government officials.

Do government officials in these states grant carry permits to their state’s poorest populations? While they may claim to be color blind, the permitting process puts minorities at a distinct disadvantage.

The “right” to keep and bear arms in these states is reserved for celebrities, wealthy gun owners, politically connected citizens and people with the time, education and financial resources to fight for their Constitutional right to bear arms. Mostly, it must be said, white people.

Even in states with less contempt for gun rights, the time, cost and complications of concealed (and open) carry licensing are too high a barrier for millions of minority Americans.

Many people who live and work in low-income, high-crime areas, people who may have the most reason to carry a firearm for self-defense, can’t afford the time or money or negotiate the bureaucracy required to exercise their Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms.

The U.S. Constitution was written to protect the right to keep and bear arms from any and all licensing schemes, for all Americans. Carrying a self-defense firearm isn’t a privilege to be earned and granted based on false notions of social good or political whims. It should not be a favor reserved for those groups with the financial resources needed to jump over the unconstitutional hurdles erected by their own government.

Constitutional Carry increases public safety for all Americans. It eliminates the racial discrimination that underpins all mandatory firearms licensing regulations. It should be the law of the land — again, and for every American.
——–

If you’re a Texan, please join me in promoting Constitutional Carry at the hearing on March 28. Click on this pdf or contact info@texasfirearmsfreedom.com for the time, place and process.

29 Responses to Constitutional Carry Ends Gun Control’s Racial Discrimination

  1. Well said! Thank you for this succinct, factual glimpse of of a world many of us are ignorant of.
    If only other barriers to true equality can be so easily shattered (said this OWG).

    • Racism is NOT the problem. Black males committing a overwhelming majority of the violent crime, felony shootings specifically, is the problem. The criminals/crime is the problem, not the PERCEPTION of racism. I am SO tired of the REAL racists in our society (non-whites), constantly crying about racism. ENOUGH!!!!!

  2. Racially biased gun control was influenced by even more recent events in our nations history.

    The Mulford bill was drafted in response to Black Panthers patrolling neighborhoods while openly carrying, presumably on “copwatch” patrols. It prohibited open carry in California.

    Of course, the Panthers were not happy about that at all, so on May 2, 1967, they paraded through the California state capitol building with openly displayed rifles and shotguns to protest the bill, which essentially ensured it’s passage.

    You may say what you like about the Black Panthers. But the fact is, they had a Second Amendment right to carry those arms. The ever increasing amounts of gun control in California can be directly traced to the racist response to these protests.

    • i remember those images captured in the evening news and probably mom’s time magazine (she stills reads it cover to cover) as a kid in the sixties. many years later as the gun bans and restrictions continued i thought, how terrifying that must have been to mainstream america (“help, save us- negroes!” to quote foto funnies from nat lamp), allowing the voters to get behind the new legislations and continue on as “necessary” and “reasonable.”

    • The Mulford bill did not prohibit open carry; rather it prohibited the open carry of loaded firearms, and a specific section of the Penal Code was added to allow officers to check a weapon to assure that it was unloaded. Concealed carry then, as it had been for many many years, was “may issue,” under statutes designed to keep blacks, Hispanics and Chinese unarmed. Open carry of handguns was prohibited in 2013, as I recall, with the open carry of long arms the following year, a reaction to “open carry protesters” who were frightening the soccer moms when the open carriers (with unloaded weapons) went to the boardwalk or the local Starbucks.

      • The Mulfrod Act lead to blacks only be stopped and checked for loaded or unloaded weapons. Also the police used the act to confiscate black owner’s guns on the spot. And then check them at the police station, a few days latter, and then maybe you got your guns back. But the white owner’s guns were not confiscated. I saw this personally in Sacramento when I was a kid.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Night_Stalker

        “The Original Night Stalker is a media epithet for an unidentified serial killer and rapist who committed 50 rapes in Northern California and murdered twelve people in Southern California from 1979 through 1986”

        I remember my single mother and single teachers saying they slept with a knife under a pillow. I saw how white men openly carrying guns were not stopped or molested by the police, while they patrolled their neighborhoods. Yes, Gov. Reagan did sign it. But have the white people who run democrat party, the “friend” to minorities removed the law from the books?????

        No, they have not.
        Just FYI for those who care. There were republicans who spoke out and voted against the Mulford Act. One of them was republican state senator John G. Schmitz. He was a member of the John Birch Society. If a member of the John Birch society will stand up for the gun rights of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, then that is a good John bircher for this black gun owner.

        • Here is a good example why so many black gun owners don’t trust white gun owners. And they don’t trust the government. On Netflix, “Mother with a Gun”. The Jewish Defense League in southern California was openly carrying Thompson sub machine guns, all though out the 1970s in California. And the police did not check them for loaded weapons. This was pre 1986, before then machine gun ban.

          A so called black extremist group has its guns taken. But a white jewish group who has been designated a terrorist group gets to keep its guns and bombs or as the AFT calls them explosive devices. The jews blew up and killed a lot of people in America. But they get to keep their guns. Why?????

          The Black Panther Party for Self Defense was never designated a terrorist group. The KKK is totally supported by the 3 L’s. The Libertarians, liberals, and the Left. They totally support the KKK marching and carrying guns. But they don’t support the Black Panther Party gun rights. Why not?????????

          http://www.docnyc.net/film/mother-with-a-gun/

          https://www.netflixreleases.com/mother-with-a-gun-2016/

  3. A RIGHT shouldn’t need a government permission slip or qualifications. The 2nd Amendment has no qualifications…and it isn’t just black folks denied.

  4. I’m white, have an ok job, and I’ll be the first to say if I conceal any of my weapons I didn’t ask uncle Sam first, and I am in a “shall issue for $800” state. gun free signs aren’t legible to me unless it be a school or government building. We also have a magazine ban here, and out of everyone I know that owns hi-cap recieving firearms, there are zero that abide by that unconstitutional ruling by local government. there are virtually zero convictions in this state for those violations as well. The government doesn’t realize if there is no one enforcing the laws they write, they are as worthless as the paper they are written on.

  5. I hear that requiring an ID to vote is racist because it disproportionally affects minority communities. It must be noted though that state IDs are much less expensive than conceal carry permits. Every liberal out there willing to actually engage in an intellectual debate must realize that if they believe an ID to vote is racist, so is a permit to carry.

    • My state waives the fee for photo ID (not driver’s license) if you’re impoverished. I suppose that would make voter ID ‘less racist’, or even ‘no impediment to any lawful voter’.

      Perhaps we should give free Hi-Points and free CPLs to the impoverished?

    • True enough, however one has to recognize that black Americans are disproportionatley poor.But in any event, being poor disqualifies many from obtaining permits in shall issue states because of cost. In California, it costs a minimum of $320 to get a CCW permit, more in counties that also require a psychological exam or where the training classes are more expensive.

    • One of the favorite arguments people such as Obama and Holder have used to argue for discrimination is “disparate impact”. A policy or practice need not be discriminatory on its face, but if it has a disparate impact, it can still be racist. Under that logic, carry permits in a lot of jurisdictions are certainly racist.

      • Anything said about race by true racists like Obama and Holder is a joke. The left are the most racist people on the planet. When they speak about racism, it’s hypocrisy at it’s finest.

  6. The same thing can be said about gun snobs and those states that charge mucho dinero just to apply, and more to follow through.

    These ideas are at the least, classist, if not fully racist. There are many ranges that will make anyone using a Hi Point(maybe all he can afford and he is getting to know his new defensive buddy) or someone who does not look like the regulars there.
    There are ranges that are LEO dominated, and it is as bad as going into a cop bar while black.
    Many gun stores are the same, someone of color or that looks like a biker come in, all eyes are on him/her, employees check the safeties on thier firearms, etc.
    All must be welcome, all must be given the same chance at self protection you enjoy.
    If they decide to buy, offer more than a safety demonstration, tell him when you will be at the range and give him/her the 15 or 20 min program on how to operate it. Ranges should give some instruction during slow times, make them welcome and they will stress safety to others and could bring more good people in to purchase or rent time.
    The people that come in to buy thier first firearm are good people, they need protection as much or more than you do(see rates of black on black or latino on latino crime).
    Not liking rap or the “thug life” does not make you racist, most minority people do not support that either.

    • “Going into a cop bar while black”??? Do you realize how many black cops are at my local FOP drinking with our black chief of police, and our black mayor? You and your post should both be balled up and thrown in a dumpster. Thanks for proving, yet again, that the left wing crying about racism are the most racist.

  7. And have you noticed that the states with Constitutional carry tend to be those that the leftists call “right wing and racist”, and the states that prohibit carry are run by the leftists? Maybe someone can explain that for me ….

    • There is no explaining logic from the left, because they have none. They are moronic racists that peddle well documented lies.

  8. “Carrying a self-defense firearm isn’t a privilege to be earned and granted based on false notions of social good or political whims.”

    While I agree with the political angle, I have a serious concern about competency. I am struggling with the idea of letting any incompetent untrained and thus inherently unsafe person carry a firearm in public. We have all see enough stupid s%%$ in ranges and such to know that many people buy guns and think that it is enough to make them competent. In other words, while I love shooters, I dislike the lack of competency of many gun owners.

    I strongly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and that instructional and training requirements could and should be factored in to 1) keep us safe from incompetent people and 2) avoid that following incidents with idiots public opinion doesn’t turn against us.

    So yes to must issue or constitutional carry, BUT with some instructional and training requirements attached. I treat carrying as responsible and serious business, and I’d like to keep it that way for all.

  9. “Women and men of color, many facing murderous racists, were denied a permission slip to exercise their gun rights in defense of innocent life (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr.).”

    Indeed, that was Alabama, where after the start of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the legislature prohibited the transport of a “Pistol” in a vehicle without a permit from the county sheriff.

    Today, the Alabama Sheriff’s Association remains the primary opponent of Permitless carry, as they try to protect the Sheriff’s Discretionary Fund generated from Pistol Permits

  10. I agree with the article!-
    Also, remember for those none New Englanders. In the People’s Republic of Massachusetts…A resident can not Purchase/possess/own, or carry any long arm, or pistol without FID/LTC issued by your local Police department. Requires multiple local/state police permissions, mandatory safety course certificate, bureaucratic local pd applications to apply for permit, authoritarian style appointments to be interviewed by your local PD s licensing officer—without an lawyer present during a “pre-crime screening, permit approvals though MA.state police, and, MASSACHUSETTS firearms record bureaucracy…Might issue privilege if they all feel like it……

  11. Native Americans learned gun control was racist, the hard way….. Disarmament was always step one in dominating the tribes and forcing them into Reservations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *